Art And Morals

[Don John of Austria]

Cowardice is an undefendable vice. More than any other thing because if one is too cowardly to take responsability for ones actions then one cannot repent, one cannot reform . One CANNOT BE SAVED.

What is more important than the courage to say "I am sorry for ________" Yet this man cannot this man cannot even do that. He is a coward and cowards of this magnitude are doomed, we should pity him.

That being said I agree it does not affect the quality of his art. His art may be beautiful, many of the ancient Greek artist sodomized little boys too but their sculptures are still beautiful. However my viewing them does not put money in their pockets, paying to see a Polanski movie is financialy supporting a child rapist. One who has not payed for his crime or even stood trial for it. Art is not in debate the rightousness of supporting a child rapist is.

[cmotherofpirl]

I wouldn't do anything to pout monet in his pocket.

THe world is full of other beautiful things not directly connected to sin.

[aquamarine]

I think it's important to make a distinction between paying for one's crimes and paying for one's sins. Crime and sin often go hand in hand, and almost always run parallel courses, but paying for them isn't the same thing. Not one single one of us knows what price Polanski has paid for his sins. Not one of us. However, it's hard to have respect for him because of his actions in the legal arena.

It's fair enough to say you aren't willing to support the work of a man who is a fugitive from the law, especially for the particularly heinous crime he committed. Boycotting is probably one of the best, most effective, non-violent ways to make your social and political disapproval known.

BUT....make sure you separate that from not supporting his work because he's a sinner. That's really treading on some thin ice, IMO.

And I think it is also important to keep in mind that, given the cast and the script, Polanski's involvement may have a lot less to do with the success of the film than he or his supporters would like to think. It's kind of like Phil Jackson getting all those accolades for coaching Michael Jordan... :)

[cmotherofpirl]

Ok I have been rephrased. :D

I am multitasking today. :P

Edited January 3, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I think you're absolutely right Aqua - I don't boycott his work because he is a sinner - I boycott his work because secularly he has yet to do his time for the crime.

[hyperdulia again]

The girl in question, now a woman pushing forty I think, saw the Piano. She liked it. She also thinks Polanski should allowed to return to the US.

[Don John of Austria]

I boycott him because he is a coward, being a fugitive can be rightous and meritorious but not when its for rapeing a little girl which you don't even deny doing. So he should have stood up and take the consequencices for his actions. Now I think the distinciion between breaking the law and sin is a valid one but if one breaks the law and doesn't sin( thereby breaking an unjust law) then they are not necessarly dispicable for avoiding punishment or perhaps are noble in there attempt to avoid the law( such as a revolutionary) but the sin which this act was the sin agianst the girl, the sin agianst society, and the sin agianst God show his running to simply be the act of a coward who should be punished for his crimes.